Lap top and tablet ban
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways is registered in England, as is Monarch. But the usual rules applies then. Anything English = British and generic, or foreign. God forbid anything be described as English, only the Welsh and Scots are able to refer to anything from their respective countries as their own.
In respect of the US ban, the muppets would be perfectly justified in concluding exactly that.
British Airways is registered in England, as is Monarch. But the usual rules applies then. Anything English = British and generic, or foreign. God forbid anything be described as English, only the Welsh and Scots are able to refer to anything from their respective countries as their own.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Here and there
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all checked luggage is put into explosion proof containers, it make some sense if not I'm a little confused as to why allowing a suspected (possible) explosive device in the belly of the plane, not withstanding the risk of LIO fire in an area not accessible to the crew to put it out before all the plane is consumed....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not effective
Before I get flamed. I will not reveal anything that a regular business traveller will not know and bad guys can be business travellers too. I also accept this is a fast-moving situation and things may change over the next few hours and days as other countries join in the fun.
Next week I am travelling from the Far East to the UK and have chosen Turkish Airlines for economic reasons, they are cheap and provide star alliance points there is also a fair chance I will have an empty seat next to me as things are not going well for THY.
I will now have to check my laptop even though I am only transiting Istanbul and despite it having been cleared by security in an unaffected country. If I was flying from Istanbul to London on Lufthansa via Munich I would transit Munich non-Schengen to non-Schengen without a security check in Munich and thus would arrive in the UK with my laptop having been cleared only by Turkish security.
So, even though I am not traveling from Turkey I will be inconvenienced whereas a “bad guy” traveling from Istanbul with the intention of harming an aircraft over UK airspace can still do so if they take an indirect flight.
As it stands, at the moment, at best it is an ineffective regulation badly applied, at worst it is deliberately put in place to economically harm certain countries airlines.
If it is the former, then it needs to be sorted out quickly because we are all apparently in danger and there is a huge gap in the regulation rendering it ineffective. If it is the latter, then I am sure there will be retaliation by the affected countries soon, at least I hope there will be.
Whatever the outcome it will stop me flying THY after this trip, fortunately this trip requalifies me Star Alliance Gold so it’s not an issue #firstworldproblem
Next week I am travelling from the Far East to the UK and have chosen Turkish Airlines for economic reasons, they are cheap and provide star alliance points there is also a fair chance I will have an empty seat next to me as things are not going well for THY.
I will now have to check my laptop even though I am only transiting Istanbul and despite it having been cleared by security in an unaffected country. If I was flying from Istanbul to London on Lufthansa via Munich I would transit Munich non-Schengen to non-Schengen without a security check in Munich and thus would arrive in the UK with my laptop having been cleared only by Turkish security.
So, even though I am not traveling from Turkey I will be inconvenienced whereas a “bad guy” traveling from Istanbul with the intention of harming an aircraft over UK airspace can still do so if they take an indirect flight.
As it stands, at the moment, at best it is an ineffective regulation badly applied, at worst it is deliberately put in place to economically harm certain countries airlines.
If it is the former, then it needs to be sorted out quickly because we are all apparently in danger and there is a huge gap in the regulation rendering it ineffective. If it is the latter, then I am sure there will be retaliation by the affected countries soon, at least I hope there will be.
Whatever the outcome it will stop me flying THY after this trip, fortunately this trip requalifies me Star Alliance Gold so it’s not an issue #firstworldproblem
Last edited by STN Ramp Rat; 22nd Mar 2017 at 02:29.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those questioning the uniformity of rules...
In almost all these countries listed, there is NO liquids ban on the flights FROM these places or their airports.
So just as you say there is gaping holes, so there is right now and has been for years. Only in the US, Europe and Australia is there liquid bans. Everywhere else is a free for all! Go figurr
In almost all these countries listed, there is NO liquids ban on the flights FROM these places or their airports.
So just as you say there is gaping holes, so there is right now and has been for years. Only in the US, Europe and Australia is there liquid bans. Everywhere else is a free for all! Go figurr
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport security often has the ridiculous policy of treating pilots the same way (or worse) than they treat passengers. So it will be interesting if they stop the pilots of those affected flights taking on board their ipads and tablets used for Jeppesen charts, takeoff performance etc. I doubt there will ever be a return to the paper charts and manuals. So if common sense prevails and they allow pilots to take Ipads and laptops on to the flight deck this might start a precedent and allow us to take other useful items such as screwdriver, leatherman etc on to the flight deck too.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For well over a decade we've been able to, optionally and with proper training, carry a firearm on the flight deck. But, we still have to get wanded down for pocket knives, corkscrews with a blade, screwdrivers and other banned items.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the latter inaccurate portrayal reflected actual fact, then your statement might be correct. However, such a wide ranging broad swoop is plainly wrong. For example, Canada, HK, SG, China, and other countries limit the amount of liquids passengers may legally bring on board commercial flights.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that a bomb in the hold is going to make as large of a hole as one in the pax compartment - and that it would seem easier to check carried-on devices (by turning on, if nothing else) than to check items in the hold.... Assuming that this isn't entirely political, then maybe whatever intelligence they've received isn't explosive related?
My initial thought was a weapon of some sort (gun, knife) hidden inside the laptop - but it seems unlikely that you could get much inside a tablet. That leaves a question of software. Could terrorists/hackers have found a way to use a laptop to interfere with communications or the operation of the aircraft? If possible, it would probably require "hands-on" the device, which would be impossible with it in the hold.
My initial thought was a weapon of some sort (gun, knife) hidden inside the laptop - but it seems unlikely that you could get much inside a tablet. That leaves a question of software. Could terrorists/hackers have found a way to use a laptop to interfere with communications or the operation of the aircraft? If possible, it would probably require "hands-on" the device, which would be impossible with it in the hold.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm Lets see, EK,EY,TK,QR largest carriers of residents of the Sub continent to the Americas. I would say almost 90% load on most flights out especially as the Summer holidays followed by college season starting up shortly. Smacks of an economic embargo thinly disguised as a terrorist thereat with no merit.
Agreed. The UK has to go along with some of the Trump attempt to keep the ME3 out of the USA, but not so far as to create tensions between the UK and Qatar/UAE at a time when Liam Fox is camped in the Gulf telling the big money guys how much we love them.
I am sure there is a kernel of truth at the heart of the US decision but the whole broad brush thing doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny.
My own employer isn't going to insist its staff change over to flying on US airlines as that would be a mutiny, and when they arrive in 'murica, they can if they wanted, go out and buy a cheap laptop and use that instead, with all their data stored on company servers - or if their employer has a US base, provide a loan laptop instead. Sure they lose a few hours of working time in the air but that's worth it compared with travelling long haul on US airlines.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if it's not a bomb - but something else? Say, Bio or chem weapon concealed in a laptop, that is otherwise fully functional? Or software to hack the aircraft?
There's only a few reasons for stashing suspect devices in the hold, and potential explosive power is not one of them. Either the threat requires the attacker to actually use the device (hacking the a/c), or the device contains something that would be lethal in the cabin, less so in the hold.
The earliest reports said the ban would last 96 hours. That's a very precise time frame.
There's only a few reasons for stashing suspect devices in the hold, and potential explosive power is not one of them. Either the threat requires the attacker to actually use the device (hacking the a/c), or the device contains something that would be lethal in the cabin, less so in the hold.
The earliest reports said the ban would last 96 hours. That's a very precise time frame.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Haifa
Age: 68
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would seem easier to check carried-on devices (by turning on, if nothing else) than to check items in the hold.... ....
Could terrorists/hackers have found a way to use a laptop to interfere with communications or the operation of the aircraft? If possible, it would probably require "hands-on" the device, which would be impossible with it in the hold.
Could terrorists/hackers have found a way to use a laptop to interfere with communications or the operation of the aircraft? If possible, it would probably require "hands-on" the device, which would be impossible with it in the hold.
Similarly, what communications exploit can you run on a kindle, or on a laptop, that can't be run on a phone? Phones have all the same radios in them than laptops do, and several more besides, of higher power.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does it make a difference whether they re-screen in Ireland or the UK? Neither are affected for the first leg, and re-screening will take care of the secoend leg no matter where the stop is.
